|
Post by celawson on Oct 15, 2018 17:08:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 15, 2018 17:28:10 GMT -5
This is rather unfortunate, I think: dailycaller.com/2018/10/15/elizabeth-warren-less-native-american-dna/This is at the DC, but other right-leaning sites are saying the same thing, based on this study, which says: I don't think this is going to work out as any sort of shrewd move for Warren. People who already liked her won't change their opinions; they'll cling to the test as real proof. And people who like Trump will cling to stuff like the above as proof that Warren's claims are nonsense. And people like me--who like neither one of them--won't be predisposed to now favor one of them more because of this silliness. That leaves people who are on the fence about one or both of them. And I can't see such people--assuming they're somewhat intelligent at the very least--seeing this as any sort of "aha" moment, at all.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Oct 15, 2018 17:33:59 GMT -5
Rob, I think you're underestimating what folks on the left will think once they realize the Cherokee perspective on this. This is cultural appropriation, is it not? I think she's done herself some real damage. This has more meat to it, as a lie, than "I'm a self-made man."
EDITED TO ADD: BTW, I had already posted those statistics on the average white person. That's ok, I realize most people here gloss over my posts as just cheerleading for DT. Sometimes I put some interesting stuff in them, though.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 15, 2018 17:46:38 GMT -5
I did, in fact, gloss over the quote in your post with that info. Sorry.
But about those numbers (apropos of nothing, really): I suspect Opti is right upthread when he noted that white people in the South have Native American ancestors almost as a matter of course. I'd bet that the Northeast "white people" probably have a lower on average percentage of Native American ancestry, as compared with the rest of the country.
So there's a good chance that Warren is more Native American than Trump, but less Native American than, say, me.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Oct 15, 2018 18:08:05 GMT -5
ce has an interesting point. Has anybody checked with the cultural appropriation warriors to get their take on Warren after all this?
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Oct 15, 2018 18:26:49 GMT -5
In the South, I could throw a rock in the air and be pretty confident it would land on a white person with a Native American somewhere in their ancestry. I don't think she did herself any favors by digging up this horse from the grave and beating it again. Unless, of course, it was pre-emptive for a future POTUS run; an attempt to circumvent it from being brought up as an attack in the campaign. But, I'm not sure she even achieved that. Time will tell, I suppose. I agree with all of this, actually. I can finally update my signature line.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Oct 15, 2018 18:38:00 GMT -5
ce has an interesting point. Has anybody checked with the cultural appropriation warriors to get their take on Warren after all this? My Twitter feed is interesting in that I have the Republican stuff and I have a lot of writing/publishing stuff, and the writing/publishing stuff is overwhelmingly left of center and in fact many are sort of diversity warriors. I’m seeing some anti-Warren stuff from that side of my feed today. I will look again and see if I can post some after I get back to my laptop.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Oct 15, 2018 19:41:21 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2018 19:46:01 GMT -5
All that said, I agree it was certainly cheesy of her to allow herself to be listed as Native American based on that little fragment, especially when she didn't know for sure. It was also, as far as I can see, really not that big a deal. Giggling at her is fine. I'll even accept a certain degree of scoffing. But come on. It's really not that big a deal. It's not a big deal, but I wouldn't say it's no deal. Claiming minority status has actual legal and economic significance - like being able to qualify as a "minority owned" business, and enabling your law school to brag about its "diversity" because you're on the faculty. I mean, how do you think actual Native American professors feel about Elizabeth Warren being who her school held up as their token Indian to brag about their diversity? Even if she never actually did benefit from it, she probably didn't check those boxes on a lark. C'mon Cass, it's sleazy. No, not as sleazy as calling her "Pocahontas," but it doesn't deserve to be defended. Trump, of course, took a legitimate criticism and turned it into a ridiculous, offensive, racist punchline that he repeats at every opportunity because that's what Trump does. But the criticism is still deserved. It also doesn't erase her other fine qualities, but she should just walk back the whole Native American thing rather than doubling down on a 0.001% result from a DNA test. And while Trump's "bet" was as ridiculous and offensive as the Pocahontas cracks, no way would proving somewhere waaaay back in your family tree is a Native American make you "an Indian," IMO, and if you're really defending that as a lawyer, I'd be fascinated to hear the legal theory under which he could be held to it. (I would assume that if he and Warren had actually formalized that wager, they'd have agreed on some minimum percentage of NA ancestry she had to prove, and I doubt very much Trump would have agreed that 6 generations back was sufficient.) I actually agree with much of this. (1) I agree it's not "no deal." Moreover, I'd move it over into "big deal" territory if it appeared that it benefited her. (2) To be clear, I don't think she should be doubling down and defending this. First because I agree with you that she shouldn't have claimed native american status to begin with (regardless of benefit), and secondly because it's so fucking stupid and a pointless distraction from the things we should be talking about. I agree with you that she should have walked it back, and then walked away. (3) Also, to be clear, when I said "as I lawyer, I'll defend this", I actually did NOT mean that she should take Trump to court and that I'd like to defend her case. That would really be fucking stupid. Nor did I mean a court would rule in her favor in this scenario if she did. I meant it as a bit of a throwaway line, to indicate I was going to go nitpicky lawyer on what the context of this challenge might actually mean, approaching the language as a lawyer, and I did so solely to contradict Don's assertion that the DNA test would have to show that Warren's heritage was all or mostly "Indian". If you actually did have an actual contract containing this particular challenge, worded this way (and by the way, contracts, especially those drafted by non-lawyers, contain stupidly vague and undefined language all the time, which is why they get litigated when things go sour -- if things were always clear, litigation would be rare), I'd see Trump's challenge as having two parts (1) that Warren take the DNA test (which of course she did), and then (2) that the DNA test would show that she was not "Indian". The second part is vague, since Trump doesn't define what "Indian" means. In a contract dispute, when you have vague language, you look outside the four corners of the contract to determine what the parties might have meant by it. Here, then, you'd look at what Warren had claimed, and that Trump's challenge was therefore addressing. Here, she clearly was not claiming that she was mostly Cherokee. She was claiming, at best, a small percentage. Why, then, would Trump be demanding she prove she's all or mostly "Indian" when she'd never claimed that? To my mind, she met the challenge: she took a DNA test, and it showed what she claimed -- distant native american heritage. But that said, of course she shouldn't sue, because that would be dumb and yet another stupid distraction. (4) As I've said, I know from some personal experience that many schools/employers seize on any opportunity to claim you're a minority, if there's some excuse for doing so. That said, it doesn't mean Warren should have gone along with it -- I certainly would not have done so and I don't think she should have. But THAT said, at this late date, I'm not ready to get indignant about it unless it appears someone who legitimately could claim that status lost a position because of it. THEN, I'd be fully ready to join the outrage train. But it appears that's not the case. The only reason I'm defending her at all, to tell you the truth, is because I think people are disproportionately down on her for it. (Getting down on her to some extent is appropriate, IMO -- just not to the extent some are.) Maybe I'm just getting jaded by the sheer degree of corruption, duplicity, ugliness, incompetence, etc., in government today -- this just feels like small potatoes to me in comparison. I also can't see she hurt anyone by it or even helped herself particularly. But yes, I do agree it's not nothing and totally agree she should be walking back instead of doubling down. In fact, I'm annoyed with her for doubling down because we (meaning Democrats and all those who want them to win them in the midterms) really do not need this stupid fucking distraction at this time. I think Bill Kristol called it on that front earlier today: I heartily agree with his point -- Dems need to pull together and focus on the midterm message, not amplify all this nonsense. That's playing right into Trump's tiny hands.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2018 20:18:50 GMT -5
You know, if it weren't for all the (IMO) excessive outrage, and the fact that there's so much really awful, much worse stuff going on, I'd likely be more annoyed by Warren than I am.
As I've mentioned, I don't check the hispanic box, mainly because whether I could technically claim it or not, I feel it is aimed towards people of Latin American or South American descent, and specifically those who come from a less privileged background. (Not that my family was wealthy by any means, but I wasn't underprivileged.) But one of my Yale classmates did check the box, with (IMO) less excuse than I would have. She was from a wealthy family of Anglo Saxon descent who happened to live in Puerto Rico. She had not a drop of hispanic or native american blood, and she came from great privilege. It really bothered me at the time. Perhaps it shouldn't have, but it did.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Oct 16, 2018 10:30:57 GMT -5
Don raised an interesting point that I'd not seen anywhere else: there was no bet. The statement he made was part of a hypothetical in which he would've made the bet if they faced each other in a debate. I would also posit that there was also no bet because she didn't accept it on the spot, which means no consideration on her part. I believe consideration is required for a bet as well as a contract, no?! But the most interesting thing to note is that I have done DNA testing, and I am 99.9% Caucasian, and that 0.1 % is, in fact, Native American. Which, I believe, makes me Elizabeth Warren.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Oct 16, 2018 10:44:00 GMT -5
But you can't be Elizabeth Warren; you're not annoying. (Exasperating sometimes, but not annoying ) Speaking of exasperating - Trump comes up with two major wins yesterday -- the Daniels lawsuit and the Warren debacle, and then he goes and Tweets about Stormy this morning, calling her "Horseface".......sigh.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Oct 16, 2018 10:44:22 GMT -5
I'm still in amazement that Warren thought this was actually a good idea....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2018 10:45:56 GMT -5
I did not mean it was a contract. Of course it isn't. Of course the whole thing is stupid. Of course it would be idiotic for Warren to try to enforce it, in court or otherwise Of course she should just fucking drop it (better yet, go back in time and never raise it in the first place). The challenge is fucking stupid. Her taking the DNA test (or at least announcing the result) was stupid. She should have just fucking ignored it. Let's take all of that as a given. All of this is fucking annoying and stupid, and a massive distraction from everything that actually matters.
This is simply a hypothetical kicking-the-shit around question of whether Warren in fact met the terms of Trump's challenge. I think she did.
What I was getting at is the meaning of "Indian", in the given context -- is it fair to interpret Trump's challenge as meaning Warren would have to be all or mostly "Indian", given that Warren never claimed anything but distant ancestry? Don says yes, but I don't think it is. I think the challenge was for her to take a DNA test -- and that his bet was that she would not, because it would show she had no "Indian" blood. In fact, she took the challenge, and while she doesn't have much, she has some.
(I can't not put "Indian" in quotes.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2018 10:46:49 GMT -5
I'm still in amazement that Warren thought this was actually a good idea.... Agree COMPLETELY. But it's 2018, so...yeah. This is what we do now.
|
|